Legal Guarding Position

[oc]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS R4-S23-A3a: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained the guard is not required to have either or both feet on the PLAYING COURT or continue facing the opponent.

NFHS R4-S23-A3b: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained the guard my move laterally or obliquely to maintain postion, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.

I don't like the interpretation either but agree with JR that that is the way it should be called if the interpretaion says so. MTD-Here is my attempt to rationalize the interp with the book. S23-A3a says "not required to have either or both feet on the the playing court". It would be jump in logic to now say that you can put your feet down OUTSIDE the playing court. The rule does not say that. All it says is that you are not required to have the feet ON the playing court. i.e. you feet can be in the air.

The rule book is unclear on whether a player can put the feet down outside the playing court.-It does not say if you can or can't. Like it or not but the interpretation clears that up.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by oc

I don't like the interpretation either but agree with JR that that is the way it should be called if the interpretaion says so. MTD-Here is my attempt to rationalize the interp with the book. S23-A3a says "not required to have either or both feet on the the playing court". It would be jump in logic to now say that you can put your feet down OUTSIDE the playing court. The rule does not say that. All it says is that you are not required to have the feet ON the playing court. i.e. you feet can be in the air.

The rule book is unclear on whether a player can put the feet down outside the playing court.-It does not say if you can or can't. Like it or not but the interpretation clears that up.

Like it or not, the NFHS interpretation cannot be rationalized, nor does the interpretation clear up the situation.

I guess that I will have to send an email to Mary Struckhoff over the weekend and ask her to reconsider the interpretation in Situation 7(a). Two years ago the NFHS issued an interpretation that was incorrect per the rules and the NFHS issued an revised interpretation. We can only hope that the NFHS will see the light (meaning my interpretation) and correct the ruling in Situation 7(a).

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by oc

I don't like the interpretation either but agree with JR that that is the way it should be called if the interpretaion says so. MTD-Here is my attempt to rationalize the interp with the book. S23-A3a says "not required to have either or both feet on the the playing court". It would be jump in logic to now say that you can put your feet down OUTSIDE the playing court. The rule does not say that. All it says is that you are not required to have the feet ON the playing court. i.e. you feet can be in the air.

The rule book is unclear on whether a player can put the feet down outside the playing court.-It does not say if you can or can't. Like it or not but the interpretation clears that up.

My beef is threefold:

1. The rule says it is only require to obtain LGP, not maintain it.
2. The rule says the foot must be touching the player court, not touching only the playing court. A foot that is half in and half out IS touching the playing court.
3. It penalizes good defense.

It could be a good nocall. Did the defender put the opponent at any more of a disadvantage by touching 2" OOB than by being just inside the line?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
It could be a good nocall. Did the defender put the opponent at any more of a disadvantage by touching 2" OOB than by being just inside the line?

The real question is, WWHD? What would Howard do?

(Dan -- is "apple polishing" male-side?)

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

The real question is, WWHD? What would Howard do?

(Dan -- is "apple polishing" male-side?)

Sweety, we invented it - but we call it something different.

[rainmaker]

[B]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Sweety, we invented it - but we call it something different.

Spell sweetie with an "-i-e-".

And I'll stay female enough to refer to apples rather than...

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker


Spell sweetie with an "-i-e-".

Darn! And I was so focussed on not spelling it "sweaty".

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by rainmaker

The real question is....what would Howard do?

I seem to have detected, by inference from something he said, that he probably wouldn't be focusing on the defenders feet and might not notice that the defender had touched the line.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

I seem to have detected, by inference from something he said, that he probably wouldn't be focusing on the defenders feet and might not notice that the defender had touched the line.

Howard, I hope this comes up at the clinic!! I don't want to ref by inference!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

BTW, for all those interested in the various characteristics of the search algorithms used by google, here's a link to a picture returned on the search string "bill the cat". Mind you, I'm posting this for those interested in furthering innovative thought leadership in the field of computer science...I'm sure there's a paper in here somewhere...

I think I would enjoy 20 page papers if they were on the Arizona Women's Gymnastics team. And to think that I was shunning a career in research . . . . .